Coinage Overview

Solidus of Magnentius 4.29 g.

Magnentius' coinage reflects the hard economics that the usurper had to confront. At the start of his reign, precious metals were struck at their full weight, but it was soon necessary to reduce them. In the case of the solidus, the average weight was around 3.84 g. Magnentius inherited the billon coinage system of Constans, who had struck large AE2 denominations, and he maintained the weight of these coins, but they had little or no silver content. For some reason, not much billon was struck outside of Italy from mid-350 until the latter half of 351. The presence of the letters A or N, placed behind the obverse portrait (and sometimes appearing on the reverse), on AE2 size coins tends to suggest they denote value.

During the first four or five months of his reign, the obverse legend of Magnentius' coinage employed an archaic form of title: IM CAE MAGNENTIVS AVG. The bare-headed portrait is even more of a surprise, especially since the lack of a diadem was characteristic of the rank of Caesar, as with Constantius Gallus' portraits. A bare-headed emperor had not been portrayed with such frequency since the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Although coin portraits of Magnentius wearing a diadem exist (struck at Amiens and Lyon), it almost appears that he was reluctant to be depicted wearing one.

In Rome, Magnentius assigned three officinae (P, B and T) to strike coins in the name of Constantius, and a series of bronze medallions were struck honoring both emperors. Only Rome, Arles and Aquileia issued coins for Constantius. After the death of Nepotian, Magnentius assumed the D N obverse legend replacing IMP CAES, and around the same time, the coinage in Constantius' name ceased.

The portraits of Magnentius and Decentius follow the trend in coin portraiture set by Constantine and his sons; the likeness is more realistic, not abstract as those of the Tetrarchs. Also typical of the period, Magnentius' portrait fills the surface of the flan. As flan sizes became irregular there was often the partial loss of legend. Magnentius' first coin portraits appear to be based on those of Constans. His face is lean and his hair, in its characteristic back sweep, is worn down to the nape of the neck. His portrait was corrected to show heavy features (as is the case with Decentius), full and fleshy, with a pronounced double chin. His square-jawed, determined appearance makes him seem very formidable. Toward the end of his reign, many coin portraits show Magnentius and Decentius heavier still. The portraits of the brothers exhibit only slight differences; they can be difficult to tell apart without clear legends.

Aquileia, being the chosen outpost of Magnentius, issued coins and medallions of particular significance. An early solidus with the legend FL MAGNENTIVS TR(IVMPHATOR) AVG could have been initiated by an early visit to the city. Magnentius may have assumed the consulship there on January 1, 351, as evidenced by medallions depicting the emperor in consular robes and reverse legends of LIBERATOR REIPVBLICAE and VIRVS AVGVSTI NOSTRI. One of these, a magnificent 3 solidi medallion was struck at Aquileia to mark the arrival of Magnentius to the city. The reverse depicts the emperor on horseback, extending his right arm to a female figure, in an attitude of submission, holding a cornucopia and wearing a turreted crown. This figure has been identified as the Roman Empire submitting to Magnentius, but the turreted crown can denote a city, and hence Aquileia itself. [1]

Amiens was established as a mint about mid-350, perhaps using personnel transferred from Trier. The honor paid to the city has helped support the idea that Amiens was the birthplace of Magnentius. Only base metal coins were struck at this mint, the earliest showing Magnentius with a diadem. Oddly, there are few issues for Decentius from Amiens. After striking for Constantius Gallus, the mint was closed in 354.

Major Types:

Magnentius' operating mints: Amiens, Arles, Aquileia, Lyon, Rome, Trier, Siscia (August - September 351).

FEL TEMP REPARTIO:

• The emperor standing on a galley, piloted by a winged victory, holding a globe surmounted with a victory in his right hand and a labarum in his right hand.
• A soldier spearing a fallen enemy.
• The emperor standing left, holding a labarum.

Magnentius took over the FEL TEMP REPARTIO series from Constans, which had been part of the reform of 346 by Constans and Constantius. This type was not struck at Rome.

FELICITAS REPUBLICE:

• The emperor standing, holding a standard in his left hand and a globe surmounted with a victory in his right hand.

Another type inherited from Constans. This reverse was struck at Gallic mints only.

GLORIA ROMANORVM:

• The emperor on horseback, holding a shield in his left hand, riding down a fallen enemy.

This was the first new reverse type issued by the new regime and was struck by all mints, including the newly established Amiens mint. Magnentius struck a variation of this reverse in Rome for Constantius showing the enemy soldier wearing a Phrygian cap. This type was the primary issue of Nepotian. It ceased in Rome by mid-350 and at other mints, with a gradual decrease in flan size, during 351.

• The emperor standing left, holding a victory in his right hand and the labarum in his left hand, flanked by a captive on either side.
• Virtus dragging a captive.

VICTORIA AVG LIB ROMANOR:

• The emperor standing, holding a standard with a foot on a captive at his feet.
• Victory and Libertas, standing, facing each other, and jointly holding a trophy.

This type was struck only in Rome prior to the rebellion of Nepotian.

VRBS ROMA:

• Roma, helmeted, seated, facing left, and holding a victory and scepter.

Nepotian struck this type during his brief time in power. Magnentius retained it for himself and the type was struck until his evacuation of Italy in 352.

RENOBATIO VRBIS ROME:

• Roma seated, facing left, holding a victory.

A new type struck only at Rome following the recapture of the city by Magnentius. It was struck until the evacuation of Italy.

VICTORIA AVG ET CAES:

• The emperor, standing, holding standard with a captive at his feet.

Struck only at Siscia during Magnentius' brief occupation of the city (August - September 351). The coins of this mint are of a lower average weight than other mints. This type slightly antedates the better-known Two Victories type.

VICT(ORIAE) DD NN AVG ET CAE(S):

• Two victories, standing, facing each other, and holding a shield or wreath inscribed: VOT V / MVL(T) X.

There are three variations of this type:

1.A column supports the shield/wreath held by the victories.

2.The shield/wreath is held by the victories without a column.

3.The vota wreath/shield is surmounted by a Christogram.

Struck in Italy and Gaul, this type, and its widely disseminated variants, ceased in September 352, following Magnentius' evacuation of Italy.

SALVS DD NN AVG ET CAES (Welfare of Augustus and Caesar):

• A large Chi-Rho symbol flanked by the Greek letters alpha and omega. A wreath was used to enclose the symbol, perhaps emulating the labarum, at the Arles mint.

This type was struck at four Gallic mints beginning in the summer of 352 until the end of Magnentius' reign. The first issues of the double centenionalis weighed an average of 8.33g. (AE1-- 27-28 mm) but was soon reduced to an average of 6.67g. (reduced AE1-- 23-25 mm). A centenionalis (majorina) (AE2--20-21 mm) was issued at an average of 4.46g. The revolt of Trier brought with it a new coin of Constantius based on this final type of Magnentius, with the reverse legend SALVS AVG NOSTRI (Welfare of our Augustus) and was issued at a weight of 6.00g. (A solidus was also issued with a reverse legend VICTORIA AVG NOSTRI at a weight of 4.63g.) The weight of this coin places the issue in the middle of Magnentius' SALUS coinage. With this evidence, it seems possible that Decentius retook Trier from the rebels. However, the difference in weight may have been deliberate to point out the prosperity and stability of Constantius' regime to the failing one of Magnentius, whose weight for solidii were as low as 4.12g. [2]

Conclusion

We know very little about Magnentius. [3]  With the loss of Book 13 of Ammianus, we are left with ancient historians who treated the emperor briefly and harshly. Aurelius Victor clearly preferred Constans to Magnentius, calling the latter "savage in character, as one would expect in a barbarian" (De Caes. 41). Julian unleashes virulent comments about Magnentius in his Panegyrii written for Constantius. He does not even refer to Magnentius by name, calling him only "the usurper." The future emperor declared that Magnentius was responsible for the slaughter of innocent men and women and that so many deaths lay on his conscience he was fearful of an avenger (Or. 1 59 B).

Julian continues that, following the battle of Mursa, Magnentius returned to Aquileia, where he spent his time at public shows and sensual pleasures believing himself safe from invasion (Or. 1 38 C-D). He was watching a horse race when news was brought to him that Constantius' troops had broken through the alpine passes and, in haste, retreated to Gaul (Or. 1 39 C-D). Having returned to his fatherland, Magnentius invented brutal tortures, taking pleasure in watching the sufferings of his victims. A favorite method was to bind people to chariots, then have the teams gallop (Or. 1 40A). [4] While one cannot rule out the possibility of a cruel streak in Magnentius, it is apparent that his character has been stereotyped: all barbarians are brutal, uncouth and savage. Such a discriminatory belief provided Constantius with additional justification for not compromising with his rival.

In addition to his brutal nature, Magnentius is said to have been incompetent as a battlefield commander and cowardly. This is contrary to his reputation prior to becoming emperor, when, because of his abilities, he rose to the rank of comes and commanded the best legions. The battle of Mursa tends to prove he was not as incompetent as Julian suggests. Clearly, the battle was hard-fought and Constantius triumphed only by force of numbers, rather than Magnentius being out-generaled. The defection of Silvanus handicapped Magnentius with the loss of a large portion, if not all, of his cavalry.

Zosimus says Magnentius was bold when Fortune smiled on him and a coward when she did not. He was skillful in hiding his bad nature so people thought he was good and never did anything that was good unless it benefited himself (2.42.1). However, Zosimus complained that people were saying good things about Magnentius. Although it is not known about whom Zosimus was referring Libanius and, surprisingly, Julian made such references. Libanius says that Magnentius governed with regard for law and order (Or. 18.33). Julian paid Magnentius a back-handed complement when he said the usurper had not done anything laudable though much that he achieved had the appearance of merit (Caesars 315 D-316 A).

Although we will probably never know the whole truth about Magnentius' character, the picture of him as an incompetent, cruel barbarian cannot be taken for the truth. The unbiased comment of Libanius, of a just ruler, presents a side of Magnentius that was buried under the propaganda of the victors. In the end, whatever intentions Magnentius may have had, good or bad, they were eclipsed on an autumn day on a field of battle.

© David A. Wend 1999

Footnotes

1- J.P.C. Kent,Roman Imperial Coinage Volume VIII(London 1981),309-12.

2- J.P.C. Kent,ibid.,132-7.

3 - However, lack of information was more of an advantage when I wrote a fictious account of Magnentius.

4 - In an even greater exaggeration, Juliuan praises Constantius for having done nothing against Magnentius’ supporters unless they were guilty of other crimes (Or. 2.96A).

Bibliography

Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus, translated by H. W. Bird, Liverpool, 1994.

Barnes, T.D.,Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge, 1993.

Bidez, J. "Amiens, ville natale de l'empereur Magnence" REA,27(1925).

Carson, R.A.G. P.V. Hill and J.P.C. Kent, Late Roman Bronze Coinage, New York, 1989.

Eutropius, Bevarium, translated by H. W. Bird, Liverpool, 1993.

Failmezger, Victor, Revolt, war and victory as reflected by the bronze coinage of A.D. 350-353" The Celator 7(1993).

Frakes, Robert M. "Ammianus Marcellinus and Zonarus on a Late Roman Assassination Plot" Historia 46(1997).

Jones, A.H.M. J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, 1971.

Kent, J.P.C. "The Revolt of Trier Against Magnentius" NC 19 (1959).

Kent, J.P.C., Roman Imperial Coins Volume VIII, London, 1981.

MacMullen, Ramsay, Christianizing the Roman Empire AD 100-400, New Haven,1984.

Sozomen and Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical Histories, translated by Edward Walford, London, 1855.

Zosimus, Historia nova, translated with commentary by Ronald T. Ridley, Sydney, 1984.